What tricks does David Cameron have up his sleeve?

We've had "the family photos, the dolphin tattooed on his wife's ankle, the paternity leave, the cycling, the vegetable growing, the trendy trainers".  So says Andrew Rawnsley in this morning's Observer.  We've also had the celebrity policy launches with Zac Goldsmith, Bob Geldof and Kirstie Allsop.  All this has produced a modest opinion poll advance but what does David Cameron have left in the locker?  Andrew Rawnsley:

"It may make sense not to announce very much policy too early. But it does present him with the problem of running out of things to say over the next 18 months. It is not at all clear how he is going to achieve the next leap forward in Conservative support. If he can deliver more progress to them, the Tory party will follow him just about anywhere he wants to go. If this is good as it gets, the rumblings of dissent will swell into snarls of discontent."

One answer to Andrew Rawnsley's question may be coming in the shape of a looming Labour defection.  That's the speculation in today's Mail on Sunday.  A "former parliamentary candidate "who has become disaffected with New Labour" may cross the floor this week and "has been promised a safe Tory seat in return".

At the end of January a LibDem parliamentary candidate, Adrian Graves, defected to the Tories.

***

Throughout this week ConservativeHome will be analysing David Cameron's first 100 days.  That daily analysis begins today with Peter Franklin welcoming the new Tory leader's emphasis on green issues.

Comments

[Frank Young]

I would be very uncomfortable with any defector being "promised" a seat of any sort but especially one likely to return the person to the Commons.

[James Hellyer]

A "former parliamentary candidate "who has become disaffected with New Labour" may cross the floor this week and "has been promised a safe Tory seat in return".

I hope this isn't true. The party leadership has no place promising seats to anyone.

[Andrew Woodman]

Not sure I like the idea of defectors being promised seats either. If someones previously stood for us, worked hard for the party for years and loses out on a safe local seat because CCO had promised a safe seat to a defector, I think they would have every right to feel mighterly annoyed.

[john Skinner]

Editor
You can begin the analysis with Matthew d'Ancuna's column in today's Telegraph. He has some pertinent words to say on: "what I call Tory infantilism: the tendency on the margins of the movement to sneer at everything the leader does, in spite of the overwhelming mandate he received, his impressive performance in the polls and the confidence he has restored to Tory ranks."

[James Hellyer]

"what I call Tory infantilism: the tendency on the margins of the movement to sneer at everything the leader does"

I think it's infantile to give people silly names - like Tory infantiles - as a way of dismissing their views out of hand. But then such tactics are hardly surprising from someone as frequently misleading as d'Ancona. Overwhelming mandates give people the ability to pursue their agenda, they do not mean that everyone has to be automatically enamoured with that agenda.

[Alexander Drake]

I don't think d'Ancona is saying everyone has to be enamoured with Cameron's agenda, James - but I think he is justified in saying that those who are endlessly negative about DC's efforts to turn things around aren't doing anyone a favour - except the Government.

[James Hellyer]

The problem is that d'Ancona has is that he calls for a serious policy debate, but then in the same paragraph labels the very people who are trying to take part in it as "infantile".

So yes, he is really saying that everyone should go along with the Cameron project.

[Editor]

As I've noted before, I am also concerned at the policy group timetables. We are left in something of a vacuum until they report. The LibDems could use that time to put forward their own policy ideas.

Absolutely crucial to keeping up David Cameron's momentum will be good local election results in May. Gains at the ballot box will buy him some time for the policy reviews to start bearing fruit. Strong Tory showings may also unsettle Labour - causing the kind of public anxiety on their backbenches that could become self-fulfilling.

[Oberon Houston]

There is little wrong with having policy debate, in fact that is the very essence of politics. However, within the party system, people need to accept that there is a greater good to be pursued. Sometimes, when passions overflow, the greater good suffers the most. There comes a point where we must realise that squabbling over individual points of policy, whilst Labour rules the country and steadily errodes all that matters is unacceptable. The electorate despise little more greatly than a weak and divided Party.

Those that are laying into Cameron this early on in his leadership are at risk of putting a few policy preferences they have above - not just the Party - but the Conservative cause. By all means debate what is best, but when it becomes attacking your own, then it is time to take a step back for a moment and ask what is it achieving.

[Sean Fear]

Since Matthew d'Ancona did not name names, it's hard to know who, precisely, he is getting at.

I think that actually there are very few Tories who are just sniping at David Cameron for the sake of it. But there are plenty who have genuine concerns.

Like other posters, I would be very disappointed if an unsuccessful Labour candidate was assured of a safe seat.

[kingbongo]

I would be very disappointed if an unsuccessful Labour candidate was assured of a safe seat.

I think anyone who realises they have made a terrible mistake and wants to abandon Labour's secret 'Project Cuba', where the UK is close to America but enjoys none of the benefits (liberty, a wealth creating sector etc etc) just deranged statistics proving that bad is the new good, should be welcomed warmly into the party.

We should not then indulge in the patently wrongful practice of handing out seats, safe or otherwise. If a NuLab or LD MP crosses the floor they can seek to be selected just like anyone else. I would even encourage the holding of by-elections in any such seat. I would however let any sitting MP choose to defend their seat as a Tory in this circumstance - that seems only fair.

[Frank Young]

"As I've noted before, I am also concerned at the policy group timetables. We are left in something of a vacuum until they report. The LibDems could use that time to put forward their own policy ideas."

Will the results from these policy groups be staggered in the same way they have been established? I've asked this before with no response. It would, then, create a situation almost the opposite of the one we have at the moment with policy being trailed and annouced continously for quite some time.

[Richard]

"I don't think d'Ancona is saying everyone has to be enamoured with Cameron's agenda, James - but I think he is justified in saying that those who are endlessly negative about DC's efforts to turn things around aren't doing anyone a favour - except the Government"

Much of the criticisms made of Cameron such as style over substance, obsession with image etc could be made of modern politics in general. To be successful Cameron has no choice but to play by the rules of the modern media. Those of us concerned with substance have to accept that we are in a minority. I find Cameron's gimicks cringeworthy and I wouldn't be surprised if he does too. We need the masses to obtain power and the masses are captivated by image. It's the price we pay for living in a dumbed down country.

[Matthew]

I think sitting MPs who want to defect should be given nice seats; they probably win a few more back in media attention. But prospective candidates hardly deserve better treatment IMHO.

[R UK]

Cameron made one hard promise at the time of his election - to withdraw from the EPP. Am I being infantile to mention it? Please accept apologies but in my day a manifesto promise meant something - is that infantile or outmoded?

Or maybe both?

A mandate obtained by a false promise is a little less of a mandate. Cameron is deserving of less respect. Why listen to politicians who says what is convenient on the day, and then once position is secured, all is forgotten?

Do we want Blairism in the Conservative Party? D'Ancona does. It makes writing articles so much simpler if everything from yesterday is erased, and waking to a new day, fresh narrative can be created.

Truth is absolute, of course, but with a shelf life of only a few hours, does it actually matter? Or is it memory that is no longer valued? has memory become the infantile quality? - with no mature adult bothering to remember anything for more than a few hours, contimually emptying his head to make way for tomorrow's political twitterings.

[John Hustings]

"A mandate obtained by a false promise is a little less of a mandate. "

He also said he was in favour of selection during the leadership contest. He has since done a u-turn.

It's not much of a mandate if it has to be obtained on a false prospectus.

[James Hellyer]

When it comes to the question of the mandate we have to consider what his electorate think he promised.

On this forum we can see Conservatives who think he'll talk left, but act right and Conservatives who think he'll talk and act left...

All of them supposrt him. One group has been misled. Where's the mandate in that?

[Ted]

Did I miss something?

Has Hague reported back with sorry Dave we can't leave the EPP?
Has DC fired Willetts for saying this morning support the same degree of selection by ability in academic subjects as well as sport, music etc?

James you forgot
or we see conservatives who think he'll talk and act in a sensible centrist conservative manner

[James Hellyer]

They fall under think and talk left, Ted :p

And the point still stands that part of this "overwhelming mandate" has been sold a pup.

[kingbongo]

Quite right Ted!

I see the moaning contingent are back - Getting out of the EPP will happen but not in a way that will allow our enemies to paint us as extreme right-wing nutters.

Selection in schools is best achieved within schools rather than between them. This is because of the way schools are organised, there is simply never going to be a large scale return of grammar schools. In very many areas parents have to send their children to the nearest local school and the party must show we can help everyone. I know this isn't ideal for some but to say it is a rejection of selection per se is simply not true. DC can rely on the majority of us knowing he will talk and act consistently in sensibe centrist conservative manner (as Ted says).

If the whingeing is going to start up again perhaps constructive criticism could be tried as a radical alternative.

Either that or you could go and join UKIP and moan to them about how they've betrayed all of their core beliefs and let those people trying to get sensible tory policies implemented get on with it.

[James Hellyer]

Getting out of the EPP will happen but not in a way that will allow our enemies to paint us as extreme right-wing nutters

So you mean it isn't going to happen...

Selection in schools is best achieved within schools rather than between them. This is because of the way schools are organised

The inverse of that argument would have meant a big "no" to comprehensive schools.

[James Hellyer]

If the whingeing is going to start up again perhaps constructive criticism could be tried as a radical alternative.

And put this lie away please. No matter how constructively one tries to debate policies here, one is inevitably greeted with accusations of right wing extremism of some kind. It seems Cameron's Conservatives only want blind adoration.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"On this forum we can see Conservatives who think he'll talk left, but act right and Conservatives who think he'll talk and act left...

All of them supposrt him. One group has been misled. Where's the mandate in that?"

Well if it's the first one (talk left, act right), then the mandate is invalid as far as I'm concerned - as is the case with anybody who says one thing to voters and then does another.

"You can begin the analysis with Matthew d'Ancuna's column in today's Telegraph. He has some pertinent words to say on: "what I call Tory infantilism: the tendency on the margins of the movement to sneer at everything the leader does, in spite of the overwhelming mandate he received, his impressive performance in the polls and the confidence he has restored to Tory ranks.""

And this man is to be the new editor of the Spectator you say? If insight like that is going to be a feature of the new Spectator, I'm glad I've never felt the urge to read it.

As it is, the Conservative Party is not a dictatorship, and a significant minority opposed the election of David Cameron as leader - these people who did not approve the 'mandate' have every right to continue to oppose it, just as people who did not vote for Tony Blair's government have every right to voice their opposition too.

If he is referring to people who supported David Cameron's leadership bid who are now screaming bloody murder (hello Goldie, Auntie Selsdon, R UK/Henry Curteis and others...), then these people only have themselves to blame for the direction the party is taking and so I agree with D'Ancona entirely.

He is right about the new sense of confidence within the ranks (Dunfermline notwithstanding) but the proof of the pudding will very much come with the eating in May and elections thereafter, when we'll see whether the 'impressive' poll ratings he erroneously boasts about will be borne out in reality.

[Chad]

"Did I miss something?
Has Hague reported back with sorry Dave we can't leave the EPP?"

Hi Ted,

A quote from Roger Helmer's and Dan Hannan's sites:

"When should the break come?

Immediately [my stress]. That was David Cameron’s pledge during the leadership contest. Suitable foreign allies are lined up and ready to go. If the issue is postponed, they may start to lose interest."

The question is where do you draw your line in the sand? This autumn, end of 2006, end of 2007 etc?

Can you vote on "Built To Last" this autumn if we are still in the EPP without any update on when we will withdraw?

Our MEP's seem clear that the pledge was to withdraw immediately, but here we are 100 days later with increasing fear of a u-turn as there has been no update.

If the Tory MEP's are sure the pledge was to withdraw immediately, is it no wonder that people are beginning to lose faith?

[Rob G]

Chad: I don't recall where I read it, so can't check, but my recollection is that the promise to withdraw from the EPP was "by the end of next year" - i.e the end of 2006 (as the promise was made in 2005). So I shan't be worried for a long time yet.

[Chad]

Hi Rob,

If that is true, then it has passed Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan by as the quotes I included were from their current sites. Perhaps Roger or Dan could update us on the current situation?

It would seem that all everyone is looking for is clarification of when this pledge will be delivered. I doubt it will happen (the clarification) before the B2L vote which is why I have decided to step aside for now, but I really, really hope that Cameron does not seek to avoid resolving the confusion before expecting members to vote on a new platform.

[John Hustings]

I think what Kingbongo overlooks is that I wasn't even arguing for the merits of selection, or for a return of grammar schools, and so there is no need to go back to this debate. (I do however find a little odd the vigorous enthusiasm some will give to almost *any* policy agenda presented by Cameron, no matter how modest, and no matter how unConservative.)

My point wasn't to argue for selection, but to point out that David Cameron has done a U-Turn on this subject, and so any "mandate" that d'Ancona talks about has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I don't see why it is "infantile" to expect politicians to keep to the prospectus they are elected on.

To say that Cameron *is* supporting selection because he is going to extend Labour's policy of selecting 10%on "aptitude" to 10% on "ability" is rather disingenuous. This is such a tiny change from Labour's policy as to be absolutely meaningless. Moreover, Conservatives seem to want to deny that this is a selective policy at all, and when confronted suggest that there is no profound difference between their policy and Labour's. They're right. There isn't a significant difference.

Complaints about Cameron aren't necessarily anything to do with being "right-wing" either. To present this as a divide between left and right is to profoundly miss the point. My main complaint is not that Cameron is a leftie, but that he lacks ambition.

Cameron appears to be so overly-cautious that he is offering absolutely nothing for *anyone* to get excited about. Unless, that is, you think the policy of "setting" is going to turn our education system into the best in the world.

[James Hellyer]

Complaints about Cameron aren't necessarily anything to do with being "right-wing" either. To present this as a divide between left and right is to profoundly miss the point

Sorry! I was using that dichotomy as simple shorthand. The point is that we have people who think (or thought) that Cameron will offer radical free market solutions to the challenges facing the public services, and those who think such solutions are anathema. Both groups can't be right.

The truth, as you say, is that what he offers should be uninspirational to anyone.

More setting.

Lower taxes, maybe. Or maybe not.

More funding for the NHS.

These are hardly stirring measures.

[Rob Largan]

I can only agree with James and John on this one, I think the biggest thing that the Conservative Party has lacked for the past 10 years or so, has been political courage. Until we get 'some balls' and argue what we believe, instead of acting in such an apologetic manner towards everything, we will never further our cause. Cameron has succeeded in giving many grassroot members new confidence, perhaps he should start showing some confidence and ambition himself.

[Jaz]

There is much to come from Cameron, at the moment he is offering "the middle way," I suspect that his PR team will make the likes of David Davis pull the right-wing talk more often while keeping Cameron as a moderate to lead the country.

Its likely that after Cameron we will get a powerful right-wing thinking, but populist leader... I have to say though, i'm not betting against Cameron losing the election, but statistically for him to win with a majority is still statistically not likely.

Labour is hemmoraging at the moment. The public are getting a feeling of the sleeze that comes at the end of a government.

[Annabel Herriott]

I have read down this thread, and have come to the conclusion that a few of you are missing something. DC is sitting quietly by, keeping his powder dry, and waiting for the right time to strike. Right now the education bill will provide some spectator sport. I have never fenced, hand/eye coordination lousy, but I figure politics is a bit like that. Or poker? Its holding your nerve, and knowing when is the right time , not being deflected by cries from right or left. The policy forums will come out gradually, we all stop winging, get our local gov. candidates well supported, and go on from there. Surely??

[Rob Largan]

Something I think should be of concern, is the fact that Labour are in a lot of trouble at the moment, they appear divided and the stench of sleaze is in the air. A government that looks this tired, is still holding up in the polls compared with the Conservatives. Maybe this is just because Cameron has a lot up his sleeve, yet to come. But I cant help worry that the Conservative Party, at the moment is not offering an alternative vision, and Labour is therefore getting away with far too much. I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me like we have an opportunity to win the hearts and minds of the swing voters of Britian, if we just have the courage to step up and make our case. If we miss this opportunity and allow Labour to possibly recover, we may not get that chance again for a long time.

[matt wright]

I don't think there are easy quick-fix solutions when significant sections of the public have developed misconceptions (with the clever encourgaement by new labour) about our party. What is clear though is that after 100 days Cameron has made real progress on this front with signs of changing views. Gaining the trust of voters does require quite crude shfts of the tiller and then a delay while the boat changes course. That means he does have to repeat key messages about the environment, schools etc that are less traditionally right wing,

Matt

[Ted]

Listening to the news this morning & reading the papers I wonder if best thing is just to let Labour self destruct - NHS reforms failing, cash for peerages, Sir Ian Blair taping ministers, Cherie on another lecture tour, education bill bringing out EVoEM, Iraq, Jowell....Things Can Only Get Better (for the Tories)

As long as Cameron keeps on course - doesn't go for something flashy but comes across as competent leader with a united party caring about the state of the country we may find it all starts to come our way before policy commissions etc.

[Appalled]

The last thing we need is a failed Blairite careerist being parachuted into a safe seat. We want committed conservatives, who stuck with the party in its darkest days, in Parliament.

[Annabel Herriott]

Oh I do agree with Appalled. Remember that heiress married MP, having senior moment so name gone, was Tory MP for somewhere in Oxen, wife a sainsbury? crossed the floor, and ended up in St Helens?? We DO NOT WANT ANY OF THAT!!!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Oh I do agree with Appalled. Remember that heiress married MP, having senior moment so name gone, was Tory MP for somewhere in Oxen, wife a sainsbury? crossed the floor, and ended up in St Helens?? We DO NOT WANT ANY OF THAT!!!"

Shaun Deadwood, sorry, Woodward.

[Ted]

Agree with most arguments about finding defectors safe seats - in general I think they should fight the seat they hold (it is a representative democracy after all) or go into the same bucket as our A List & other candidates.

But I also recognise we need to be very welcoming to encourage the others. If the Blair Witch Project starts to unravel once the maestro has left the scene we might find a few more on the opposite benches seeking a home... it helps undermine further the image of the party as winners.

[Recess Monkey]

"As long as Cameron keeps on course - doesn't go for something flashy but comes across as competent leader with a united party caring about the state of the country we may find it all starts to come our way"

Surely the WHOLE Shadow Cabinet has to look credible. The people who might dislike Brown a bit have utter disdain for Osborne. And any Chancellor under Brown - Darling, Balls, Cooper etc, is going to look and sound safer than someone who looks like he's still deciding what to do when he grows up.

Never mind, there's still time for him to be a train driver, or an astronaut

Recess Monkey
www.recessmonkey.com
[email protected]

[Margaret]

I believe Cameron just promised to take Conservative MEPs out of the EPP to appease the right wing. There is no excuse for the delay, he probably doesn't want to be reminded.

Conservative MEPs were all for handing over Britain's seat on the IMF this week, the Tory spokesman had said that a single European seat on the IMF was 'an aspiration for the long term'. This of course is in line with the strictures of the defunct European Constitution where it says in Article III-196 X "The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt appropriate measures to ensure unified representation within the international financial institutions and conferences. The Council shall act after consulting the European Central Bank".

The question is does Cameron secretly support a European Superstate, like his alter ego Blair?